The High Anti-Corruption Court distorts the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, the High Anti-Corruption Court is eliminating both legal aid for defenders and human rights, said Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, member of the Board of the Ukrainian Bar Association Semen Khanin.
"There is no longer any power to silently observe this! In fact, the HACC is eliminating both legal aid for defenders and human rights. The investigating judges are distorting the practice of the ECHR: they and the HACC claim that in the absence of a 100% alibi, "the person in question could have committed an offense. And this is very unfortunate...", Khanin wrote.
According to him, the investigating judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court consider all the evidence of the prosecution a priori to be proper, admissible and reliable. While the evidence and arguments of the defense are treated as such that at the stage of choosing a preventive measure, the well-known lawyer noted.
"In such circumstances, every suspicion turns out to be justified, even in the presence of a 100% alibi...", - the lawyer said.
He emphasized that today the investigating judges of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court have turned the clarification of the justification of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation into a farce.
"And this clearly does not meet the tasks of criminal proceedings. But de facto impunity gives the investigating judges a feeling of some kind of arbitrariness," - Khanin concluded.
Earlier, the European Commission stated that the High Anti-Corruption Court is becoming increasingly dependent on the NABU and the SAPO, which systematically violate constitutional human rights.
Lawyer Taras Baranov accused the NABU of playing along with the SAPO prosecutors and NABU detectives. "The judges of the Supreme Judicial Council adhere to a post-totalitarian, post-Soviet approach when it is necessary to assist the prosecution - the SAPO and NABU, to fulfill their task," the lawyer emphasized.
Who we are: About us, Contacts. How we write news and our principles: Editorial code. We did our best. If you found this valuable – please support us.
To request a correction, please send an email.